Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.
Earlier in this section Calvin says, “Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten.” Two questions automatically arise from this:
- Is it proper to take ‘God’ indefinitely (i.e., as the ‘divine substance/essence’) and apply ‘unbegotten’ to it when ‘unbegotten’ is language reserved to describe the causal personal relationships?
- Can we conceive of the ‘unbegotten’ substance/essence apart from the person of the Father? In other words, if the “persons are not without it, or external to it” then musn’t we begin (at least logically) with the Father since the Father is first in terms of causal relations?
I also have reservations about the language of autotheos (God in himself) as it is applied to the individual persons, not so much because each person is not God, but rather because it is difficult to see how we can conceive of each person “in himself” with reference to the Trinity. In other words, when we speak of any individual person it is always with reference to the others.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
Hello,
I stumbled upon your site because I am doing research in this area right now.
As to number 1, Augustine in De Trinitate makes clear that “unbegotten” is indeed a unique property of the Father (and as such is “incommunicable”), but it is at the same time not simply “language reserved to describe the causal personal relationships,” since there is nothing about being “Father” that requires him to at once be “unbegotten” [aggenetos or anarchos] — especially inasmuch as our normal understanding of “father” is one that is begotten. Now, it is true that the name “unbegotten” when applied to the Father is intended to indicate a certain “order” of origin (and there cannot be any prior “matter” from which the Father begets the Son)…though the entire West is pretty suspicious of the language of “causal relations.” And this brings us to two: the term can equally apply to “God,” not as some higher principle or substance which we then “add” the three persons to (as Zizioulas would have it for apparently all of the West since Augustine — and Calvin himself makes this clear, Inst. I.xiii.2; and cf. BB Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”…first page or so); rather, there is no “real” distinction between the one God as He is in His essence and the three persons in their relations…but we can nevertheless make a distinction (so long as we recognize that there is no ontological rift between them). And this is, as I see it, all Calvin means to say: we can speak of God “absolutely” and “relatively,” though whenever we look to the One we are constantly caught up in the interpersonal relationality, and whenever we look to the relations, we are caught up in their equality and unity in the One divine essence (here he quotes from Gregory Nazianzus to make his point).
Thanks for the thoughts and keeping at least my brain thinking through these things! Peace.
dave belcher
Dave: Thanks for the food for thought. It’s nice to actually have someone commenting on one of these posts (as opposed to the usual fluff I post over here). I’ll check those references and see if I can’t come up with something constructive to say. :)
Ni Nick, sorry that I forgot to give the full references save for the Calvin (which is from the 1559 Institutes, by the way)…
From Augustine, I’m thinking De Trinitate, V.vi; and the Warfield is from Princeton Theological Review, vii (1909), 553-652…and right around 554-5 was where I was referring to (you should be able to find that issue on Google books in full view). Peace.